hat tip to DU's ProSense...Ron Paul's principles and Glenn Greenwald's duplicity

[one_voice]

Glenn Greenwald: Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil. [..] He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield.

The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Re- covery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

So Greenwald thinks that private pirates licensed to kill roaming the world is morally pure, but the US government taking violent action against an armed enemy is evil. The moral bankruptcy of Libertarianism has never been more starkly on display. Paul reintroduced that bill in 2007. By the way, the only US Congressional Representative to vote against the Afghan war was Barbara Lee. Paul voted for it. Lee is black, female and a supporter of President Obama so she fails the moral purity test, I guess. Part of Paul's appeal for the fake-left must be his steadfast commitment to making symbolic moral stands that don't mean anything, but always voting with the GOP when needed - that and his convenient moral flexibility.
( tip of the hat to ProSense at Democratic Underground.)

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/ron-pauls-princples-and-glenn.html

[ProSense]

1. Wow

DU sure is popular this weekend!

Who else is lurking?

Thanks!

[onehandle]

16. I'm just here to promote DU3.

DU2 is so 2011.

[Bjorn Against]

2. Where does Glenn Greenwald say that pirates with a license to kill are morally pure?

Whoever wrote that blog should either provide a citation for that claim or admit they are lying. I can't stand Ron Paul but Greenwald is not Ron Paul.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Imagining what people think is the new reality. It's truthiness Democrat style.

[Bjorn Against]

14. It's really sad, too many people don't care about truth and will just make crap up to smear a person

[truedelphi]

21. Well in the crap maker-uppers' defense - when people <Sarcasm meant>

Like the crap makers cannot actually use logic to win arguments, they have to create smear campaigns.


That is how all those "winning" arguments against any criticism survived for so long -

"You guys just are mad cuz you didn't get your pony."

"He's only been in office three months, six months, eighteen months... ... two years."

"He needs a second term before he can do anything constuctive."

And now of course, "He has to do less than the right thing, cuz he has to get elected."

[DevonRex]

3. Hats off to both you and Prosense. And

Boo to GG.

[Jakes Progress]

24. Sure. If you don't need sources or cites or links or any proof

of any crap you want to make up. If that is what you tip your hat to, then you have two who deserve tipping.

Or maybe you have some source for the crap the article says. Maybe you have a source that shows that Greenwald says he thinks private murderers are a good thing. Or. Maybe facts and truth aren't all that important to you.

[Puglover]

30. As always +1 Jake

Boggles the mind no? Happy New Year.

I can think of few things more noxious then having The Peoples View thinking I am just a groovy blogger.

[zipplewrath]

4. It's a conundrum

Paul is a problem across the political spectrum. He is a collection of provocative positions which tend not to be self consistent. He is a particular problem for progressives because he has a foreign policy that is fairly consistent with their interests, as well as a concern for domestic law enforcement policies. However, his approach to many civil rights, and his rejection that the federal government has much role in protecting them, is the complete opposite of their long standing historical position. This and his hostility to labor unions pretty much seals the deal.

[MilesColtrane]

9. "provocative positions which tend not to be self consistent"

That's a really nice way of saying he's a nutbag.

[arely staircase]

19. Ron Paul's "concern for domestic law enforcement policies"

tends, like so many of his concerns, to be limited to the Federal Govenrment. In a Ron Paul world, the local sheriff could kick your ass all he wants - he could just do it without any fear whatsoever of that big bad Justice Department looking into it. And sure, you could legally smoke pot during the three hours a day you weren't at work doing something dangerous for a wage set free of any minimum. And as for his foreign policy being "fairly consistent with (liberal) interests, I disagree there as well. You could say adios to any possiblity of there ever being any international cooperation or binding treaties regarding climate change or a whole host of other issues.

I don't think we actually disagree on much of anything here, forgive me for nitpicking a couple of phrases. But it drives me nuts that he has some on the Left convinced he shares their values regarding foreign policy or on individuals rights vs the police.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Again. Making an assumption to facts not in evidence.

"So Greenwald thinks". How does the writer know what Greenwald thinks about Paul's 2001 bill? Did he asked him? Did Greenwald write about it? As far as I can tell, the lazy writer of that post didn't bother to find out what GG thinks. He just make up Greenwald's thoughts.

[Scurrilous]

6. Congrats ProSense,

[Jakes Progress]

25. For what?

PS didn't post this. The article is crap smear of a critic of Obama. Standard operating procedure, I know, but full of made up suppositions and mind-reading.

That's what you congratulate?

[one_voice]

8. I'm a she not a he n.t

[Luminous Animal]

12. Noted and changed.

[one_voice]

15. Good, at least now...

your post reflects one truth.

Thank you.

[LiberalAndProud]

10. Very nice.

[Ohio Joe]

11. K&R - nt

[slay]

17. ProSense is often wrong - Glenn Greenwald is often right

Last edited Sun Jan 1, 2012, 12:37 AM - Edit history (1)

IMO. you cherry picked one statement from Glenn - how about his positions in general? I know I agree with Glenn on not all, but most things.

[ProSense]

18. Well,

"ProSense is wrong - Glenn Greenwald is often right"

...at least you could have added a qualifier as you did with Greenwald: "ProSense is sometimes wrong - Glenn Greenwald is often right"

I have long maintained that Paul is not anti-war: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

I was right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100283196

[slay]

46. Done

although i used "often" as my qualifier mainly because you don't ever acknowledge that Obama has ever done anything wrong - which in itself is wrong IMO. or maybe i just miss those posts. even though i feel like he has betrayed us in many ways, i still admit he is better than any and all of the republicans - and he has indeed done some good things. but yeah, i will admit on this, you were right, i should have included a qualifier.

[Jakes Progress]

28. Doesn't matter.

Right and wrong are such ancient and inconvenient concepts.

See you have to base all your faith (blindly) in who someone praises and who they criticize. It only gets all confusing if you have to determine principle and if you try to be consistent.

[JVS]

20. "private pirates licensed to kill roaming the world" Don't we already have that?

Aren't we contracting the services of xe/blackwater through our state department currently?

[ProSense]

22. Actually,

"'private pirates licensed to kill roaming the world' Don't we already have that?"

...no. This is more false equivalencies.

Paul's vision of a private army authorized to kill is nothing like the current practice of hiring private contractors.

[JVS]

27. Where is his vision and how is that unlike current practice?

[ProSense]

36. Just

"Where is his vision and how is that unlike current practice?"

...think, not even Greenwald knew that Ron Paul's anti-war position was bullshit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632

[JVS]

39. Answer the question, please. I'm really not interested in being spammed by you.

[Jakes Progress]

43. You won't really wait for an answer, will you?

It will not be coming. It is not in the programming.

[ProSense]

51. You know

"It will not be coming. It is not in the programming."

...the only robots around are those who keep insisting that their lack of knowledge about something is other people's fault.

[Jakes Progress]

56. I do.

And you did it again.

[ProSense]

50. It's

"Answer the question, please. I'm really not interested in being spammed by you"

...easy to see why you're a fan of Greenwald's. If you're interested in the answer, you can go to the link and read. Simple.

[JVS]

55. It's

not clear where your claim of Ron Paul's visions of mercenary armies has any basis in something he's said.

[Jakes Progress]

57. It's

easy to see why you don't answer. You don't have one. But that doesn't stop you from puffing.

Ah. Consistency. At least you can't be blamed for being like mittsy. You are steadfast. Only one thing matters. Besides that, nothing does.

But we get it. Your fans will tip to you. The majority here get it though.

[Oilwellian]

58. Indeed

The majority does get it.

[Jakes Progress]

61. Seems

you can't count. Many true Democrats were run off and shut out of DU, but every time there is a thread dividing the faithful from the thoughtful, they faithful may put up as many posts as the thoughtful, but don't generate the same numbers. Gotta admire the fervent diligence of the true followers though.

[Puglover]

23. Wait what?

We're tipping our hat to PS because that sewer of a blog tipped their hat to her/him/?. Uh umkay. Consider my hat tipped.

[EFerrari]

54. It is a sewer. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

26. Nice post.

I think this just about sums up what we have been saying about Greenwald for the last umpteen months here at DU.

[bvar22]

29. THAT was some TORTURED logic,

....and I oppose Torture.


UnRec.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[LoZoccolo]

31. DU rec!

[Number23]

33. Adding mine as well. That so many here are so upset about this is the delicious frosting

on an already pretty tasty cake.

[Number23]

32. GO PROSENSE!!! A true voice of logic and information in a sea

of paranoid cluelessness.

No one tosses out facts like Pro. She brings The Pain better than Method Man ever could. And you can always tell when ProSense has brought The Pain when you hear a) incessant and truly moronic whining about "blue links" or b) incessant and truly moronic hurling of "you're a PAID operative!1" from the clueless.

[Jakes Progress]

44. You forgot the sarcasm thingie.

But a delightful jest nevertheless.

[Number23]

59. Didn't forget a thing thanks ONCE again for your NEVER ENDING (and damn do I mean NEVER ENDING)

concern.

[Jakes Progress]

62. You can count on me.

I will help out whenever I can. And I can do it without shouting.

[girl gone mad]

53. Bwahahahahahaha!

Green shoots!

[JNelson6563]

67. lolz Girl, you always know just what to say.

And you always crack me up!

Julie

[Tarheel_Dem]

34. Here! Here! I hate George W. Bush for many reasons, but not least among them is the fact....

that folks like Greenwald, because of their opposition to war, somehow managed to embed themselves among true progressives. Libertarian claptrap was wrong before George W, and it's wrong now. "Let the free market decide" is against everything "liberals" used to stand for.

[Number23]

35. This bit was interesting, wasn't it?

"By the way, the only US Congressional Representative to vote against the Afghan war was Barbara Lee. Paul voted for it. Lee is black, female and a supporter of President Obama so she fails the moral purity test, I guess."

Makes ya wonder, don't it? Wouldn't be the first time this was lodged at GG.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Hey. Perhaps GG has the same biases as a lot of RP supporters. You know the one I mean.

Poor Barbara Lee can't get no love from GG? Hhhhmmmm.....

[Jakes Progress]

45. How would you know?

[Number23]

60. That goes double for me!

I'm so sorry if I've ever given you any indication that I give two shits what you think about ANYTHING.

I will never understand why some folks feel some absolutely PRESSING need to run around this board hounding people that they disagree with. And that poster definitely can be counted on to have to reply with something -- no matter how pointless, needless, asinine or just plain idiotic -- dammit, they just have to say SOMETHING to let certain people know they disagree with them. It has apparently never dawned on them that no one gives a damn.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. I don't know. Perhaps in their inner circle, someone actually cares. However, I am not the one.

[Spazito]

48. Well, it turns out Mr. Greenwald wasn't always against either the Afghanistan...

or Iraq war, according to his own book anyway:

on the Afghanistan war:

"This is not to say that I was not angry about the attacks. I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president's ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president's approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance."

on the Iraq war:

"During the lead-up to the invasion, I was concerned that the hell-bent focus on invading Iraq was being driven by agendas and strategic objectives that had nothing to do with terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. The overt rationale for the invasion was exceedingly weak, particularly given that it would lead to an open-ended, incalculably costly, and intensely risky preemptive war. Around the same time, it was revealed that an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein had been high on the agenda of various senior administration officials long before September 11. Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. Excuse me while I.....

So, in essence, Mr. Greenwald is just returning to his Republican roots. Like I said, I despise GWB for many things, but the biggest among them has to be his forcing "liberals" and "libertarians" into a single camp. As I suspected, Mr. GG is as phoney as Ron Paul, but for different reasons. I'll be over here ->->->->->

[Ikonoklast]

63. Britney Spears used a lot less words to say the same thing.

"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens."


And everyone excoriated her for saying that.

[Spazito]

64. LOL!

Too true!

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. +10000

You owe me a keyboard.

[TheKentuckian]

38. You throw out a complete fabrication of a position here.

When has Greenwald ever advocated private pirates killing around the world?

[Puglover]

40. Do NOT expect any sort of a coherent answer,link or anything else that makes a tiny bit of sense. nt

[ProSense]

47. It's

"You throw out a complete fabrication of a position here...When has Greenwald ever advocated private pirates killing around the world?"

..."fabrication," it's emphasizing a point: By continuing to ignore Paul's actual positions, Greenwald is hyping the views of a propagandist. He is creating the impression that Paul's positions are genuine, which is laughable.

[MineralMan]

41. Congratulations are in order for ProSense.

Bravo!

[joshcryer]

42. See also this post I made a few days back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100278930

I also posted it in the comments section there.

[brentspeak]

68. Some corporatist hack's personal blog = "hat tip" shout out?

How sad.

[Jakes Progress]

70. It's the way of the New Democrats.

or should I say the RDLC.

[girl gone mad]

71. It's beyond sad.

It's weird and pathetic.

[SidDithers]

69. K&R...

Sid